My thoughts and theories: Alright, much of the following opinion may (and most certainly will) offend creationist. If you don't want to read it, then don't that simple. Don't come crying to me with your so called "arguements". because I won't have any of it! Faith don't hold up in a laboratory folks. If you can't test it in a lab or see it under a microscope, its not real science.

Ok, ever since I was a little kid I have been in love with the idea that somewhere, out there, within the unseen wilds of Africa, or on a unkown island dinosaurs still roam, ready to be discovered! But, in recent years I have noticed that this childhood dream is being capitalized on by creationist, young earth creationist more often than not. As an athiest, and lover of dinosaurs, this just pisses me off. These people actually believe that finding a dinosaur that supposadly went extinct 65 million years ago, will throw science out the window, step on it, beat it with a stick, and finally burn it for heresy. This dream of thier's will be the one that is crushed. Well, technically its already been crushed, heres why. Apparently, finding a live Apatosaurus will prove that:

Animals can't go extinct: WRONG!

The Earth is only 6000 years old: WRONG!

Evolution doesn't happen: WRONG! FAIL! GO HOME!

I will adress each of these one at a time.

Animals can't go extinct: Wait? What? So the Dodo and Mammoth never existed in the first place? Species go extinct due to overhunting as with the aforementioned examples. Being out competed, if two animals occupy the same niche in nature within the same area, the one that of which is more efficient in fulfilling the niche will out compete the other, driving them out by limiting thier food supply, without food they don't live long enough to breed, and if they do the young starve and die...... And look, its basically common sense from here. Enviormental changes can leave one or several species without food, process above is basically repeated. Despite this they say "god" won't let animals go extinct. Sure, tell that to the dinosaurs. They are turning in thier graves. Besides, the coelacanth that is alive today is a species that isn't even in the fossil record. Plus, if they want to see some prehistoric creatures to help prove themselves, then I suggest they going swimming with sharks and crocodiles. They have been around since the mezoic era.......

Earth is only 6000 years old: "When god made earth, why did he rest on the seventh day? To figure out how the hell Chuck Norris built Jupiter so fast!" - My personal Chuck Norris joke, everybody gets one lol. But seriously, there is a test called carbon dating in which the elements within a material are measured, and compared to the original elements in which the rate of decay and half lifes of the element is measured to determine how old the object is. Granted that it can't can't tell you the exact second it died or lived, but still can be pretty damn accurate enough to be consider a valid method of scientific testing should be enough. If not, there is an entire profession known as "geology" which shows how rocks are formed, and how layers of of strata build up over time from natural forces such as wind and erosion, this process is called deposition. The longer the earth has been here, the more strata. Even if they did find a live dinosaur, they would still have to undermine several more sciences in order to prove that thier is some sort of supreme being that comes out of nowhere to make it all. You may notice I am not going into terrible detail, just getting the basic point across or this description will be HUGE! Besides, the earth was still a ball of fire at that age......

Evolution doesn't happen: Oh boy, now you've pissed me off. Evolution is the process in which a species changes over time into another in order to fill a certain niche within an enviorment. This is what forms food chains and webs, all species go through it. Most evolutionary advances are "mistakes" made within the cell or DNA when replicating. Or in the case of more complex beings such as humans, when passing on genes through a method such as sex, rather than simple cell division, traits are mixed and matched randomly in an amalgamation of it's parents, this method allows for a much wider variation within a species. Small mutations or "errors" when these genes are passed on or created in cell division they produce more variation which can be either beneficial or harmful to the individual or individuals in which this mutation occurs. It doesn't work by, a mouthless fish suddenly giving birth to a fish with one. NO! NO! NO! These changes happen very slowly of the course of many, many years. The earliest known jaw like structure was on the Anomalocaris, jawed fishes did not come till later, when it is shown through fossil evidence that fish with bent ridges were "favored" for thier ability to scoop up more food, eventually this feature developed into a jaw, which paved the way for it's descendants (amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, mammmals, ya know, pretty much everything) to develop jaws dependant on thier ecologic niche, wether in be a predator or prey. Notice the Darwin finches, when Charles Darwin went to the Galapagos he noticed that several species of finches had different shaped beaks depending on thier diet, such as large sturdy beaks for cracking open seeds and others had small beaks for tearing the needles off cacti and using them to to get to insect larva within the bark of trees. Just goes to show, that he didn't just go spouting his mouth off without something (that example being only one of many) to back it up! Unlike many religious people I've seen. Another arguement by creationist is that there are no transitional species, WRONG! VERY VERY WRONG! Even though technically EVERY SPECIES IS A TRANSITIONAL SPECIES, they really don't see it, so here are a couple that would be exactly what they would be looking for. Even still they ignore them.

Archeaopteryx - Not a hoax, many test have been done to prove it's authenticity. It is 100% real! Deal with it!

Ambulocetus - An early species that somewhat resembled a crocodile, but is actually an early ancestor of whales.

And a whole slew of other species that they continue to ignore. Plus, a living dinosaur does nothing to harm evolution, finding one does not prove that species can change over time, it simply shows how well adapted an organism is to said enviornment. I doubt that they are completely unchanged anyway. I had the idea for it being some sort of dwarf species the other day, but I doubt its name would allow for that.

I just feel that this is the wrong crowd that cryptozoology has been forced to hang out with. People already take cryptozoology as a joke, we don't need others adding to it. Alright, thats enough of that, onto the actual cryptid!_______________________________________________

Mokele Mbembe is a supposed sauropod that lives deep within the african Congo, it's name literally means "He who stops the flow of rivers". Mokele Mbembe is said to leave behind three toed tracks, have a long neck and tail, and spend much of its time in the water. It is only one of many cryptids in Africa that harken back to a prehistoric era. I for one believe that it would be very easy for such a large creature to hide within the deep reccess of the Congo.

What if this creature was a dinosaur but something like a small prosauropod (or sauropod) that was about the size of a cat (thus filling the little herbivore niche while at the same time allowing it to cross the K-T boundary). Then evolved to be a large aquatic animal (its carnivore habits may be explained with that carnivore sauropod hypothesis).

We all know that such an explanation though would be ignored by a religious zealot.

Well its said to be a herbivore, and only kill hippos and elephants for invading it's territory. But its never been said to eat them. But it might if the giant aquatic monitor lizard theory is correct.

The key to science is not to be biased to any one idea but to be open to several ideas, round it down to the most likely, then see what it is. I think the monitor theory is a little odd personally but if it isn't a dinosaur it is probably a lizard of some sort.

Still hard to imagine people find it hard to reason a bee hummingbird is a dinosaur.

It just occured to me that the flexy neck is not dino material unless apllied to a bird or therapod (okay they are the same sue me). What if it is a therizinosaur that went on all fours and is convergent with sauropods and swans. It would lose its down feathers in return for fat and scale like skin (the skin of an elephant looks like it has scales at a distance after all).

I would say "Darn you pokemon!" if it wasn't creationists that used pokemon against us.

It just occured to me that the flexy neck is not dino material unless apllied to a bird or therapod (okay they are the same sue me). What if it is a therizinosaur that went on all fours and is convergent with sauropods and swans. It would lose its down feathers in return for fat and scale like skin (the skin of an elephant looks like it has scales at a distance after all).

I would say "Darn you pokemon!" if it wasn't creationists that used pokemon against us.

Actually, some of these young-earth creationists believe that God has made the Earth look older than what it really is. And that God put the bones into the Earth to fake people out (mostly a quote from a Simpson's video game).

Of course, I think it's just a bunch of bullshit some "Christians" say to make creationism still seem revelent. Even the previous pope believed in Evolution.

Ya, they have a bunch of explanations to cover thier asses. But I more focused on the beliefs that a typical YEC believes they will accomplish by finding a living dinosaur. But, its all still relevant. And which Simpsons game? I have Hit and Run, but I don't think thats it. Everything they say contradicts every other thing they say it seems. I really wish they would "deconvert" all the creation museums into REAL museusms.

I'll admit that I don't put too much faith into the existence of Mokele Membe, but I do agree with your little rant above, lol. Any time you research the subject of prehistoric species surviving into modern times you get a ton of totally inane crap from "creation science" websites, and it's very aggrivating. The Coelocanth didn't "prove Darwin is wrong!", and neither would a dinosaur. If anything it'd be proof of the evolutionary process, because you could compare it to it's Mesozoic ancestors and point out all the changes it's gone through to survive in it's new environment.

Exactly my friend, exactly. I can't search "living dinos" without getting a bunch of creationist crap. Loren Coleman, now there is a cryptozoologist, he made a good point with his quote from his blog recently "most creationist are hell-bent on proving something" thats not the full quote becuase Cryptomundo isn't working right now but I will post the full quote once it starts working again. As for Mokele Mbembe, there is a vocalization recorded in the area that biologist can't indentify. its kinda a deep gutteral roar. Its on an old tape of mine, I don't hear much about it though, its probably not well known. Plus, with the difficulty in searching the area, it wouldn't be hard for a herd or 3 of them to hide in.

I haven't seen it anywhere, but if i find it I'll let ya know. I so need something to put that tape on my computer, almost got something for that at big lots once, but my dad didn't buy it. If I find that program I will upload it to youtube, it may have been directed at kids, but I recently watched it and still loved it. It has claymation and stuff in it. Its pretty cool.

"Those looking more deeply than just the straight cryptozoological headlines being used (”Theropod and sauropod dinosaurs sighted…” and “Large Reptilian ‘Dinosaur-Like’ Creature Reported…” with this case will naturally lead to criticism of Irwin’s investigations. Why? Because some Creationists seem, well, let me just say it, hell-bent on doing their cryptozoology with the whole idea that they have something to prove, namely, that evolution is wrong. This can get in the way of merely doing unbiased interviewing and analysis of the data."